Those of you who have read me before will likely have some clue as to my views on 'global warming'. It's junk science, in my opinion, if you can call it anything close to science at all. Numbers doubled, tripled and more, on a whim, by necessity of agenda, emotionally-motivated.... Climate-Gate showed how low they would stoop and how far they would reach to further a fable. None of them speak of the greatest source of air pollution--home cooking fires in S.E. Asia, according the journal Science. And now this...theft of internal documents of 'adversaries' (opposing opinions) and manufacturing of faked memos to defame those with opposing opinions. In this case the opposing opinions are backed by facts that seem to strike to the heart those who find them to be, shall we say...'Inconvenient Truths'? And in the meantime we have have every source of power for our nation under attack by "idrealists" with no sense of reality and what it takes to achieve true PROGRESS in a nation, in the lives of individuals and for small and large businesses alike. Refuse to feed the goose that lays the golden eggs and soon you will have no golden eggs. Do this long enough and soon you have no nation, no civility and nothing left but chaos and anarchy, followed by martial law and dictatorship. History will bear me out.

Maybe you feel as I do, that it shows a lot about a persons character if they need to lie, cheat, steal and deceive at every turn to get their way, even in the face of conflicting facts. It might also make you wonder just WHY their goal is so important to them. History tells us it is usually power, money, sex or something they place on a huge and high pedestal, adoring an ideology, an hypothesis, anarchist goals or such. Perhaps a 'one world government' is the goal? Integrity means nothing to those who must stoop to such means. The ends do NOT justify the means as commonly believed. When the individual or organization becomes corrupt in order to achieve an ideal, it amounts to a sellout, a prostituting of the soul, becoming the very perceived enemy itself. The adherents to the ideal have now become so much less than they once were that one might now say they are unworthy of the very goal they once sought to achieve. When the army or the leader becomes unworthy of the goal or of being followed in faith, the war is effectively over, except within ones self. That is one enemy you never escape--wherever you go...there you are. Lies will always follow the deceiver until truth is faced and accepted.

Top Opinion

I think it's all part of the cycle of life from the beginning of time till now. There are always the Al Gores in this world who try to profit from fear mongering, which is unfortunate for us but great for them. I personally don't believe in man made global warming. I too remember the coming ice age that we should be in by now, but oops, that changed and then it was global warming. Now they call it climate change, which of course covers everything so they are never wrong........right?

The truth is we are warming our planet with this un-natural C02 from burning of fossil fuels. What has taken natural processes millions of years to lock away, we have released into the atmosphere in largely the last fifty years or so. Surely no-one in their right mind can think that is going to have no effect. We have burnt mountain ranges of coal and lakes of oil. We have to stop doing this even though we are completely dependent on it for our very food supply. The whole reason our population has ballooned to 7 billion in the last hundred years is fossil fuel. We have no one alternative energy source and we are going to need everything we can find as a cleaner alternative. We need to find something that doesn't presently exist so who exactly is going to benefit from that ? We need to stop debating climate change and start throwing everything we've got at the problem, whilst using as little fossil fuel as possible until we find alternatives.

Saying it's so doesn't MAKE it so. Opinion is not fact. Paleo-archelologists and paleo-climatologists would have some points to differ with you.

"...We have to stop doing this even though we are completely dependent on it for our very food supply. The whole reason our population has ballooned to 7 billion in the last hundred years is fossil fuel. We have no one alternative energy source...."

So we sacrifice our food supply? Wrong. Population has ballooned because of fossil fuels? Wrong in part. Did you forget things like irrigation, disease control, education, peace treaties and more? No alternative source? Wrong. We have electrolysis of water, which would produce hydrogen and oxygen, leaving only water vapor as exhaust. Then you would have some dope crying about too much water vapor and the humidity being so high. Face it--you can't win when people rely on emotional outburst rather than education based in verified truth.

Just like everything else the leftists come up with, it always requires you to check your brain at the door and pay zero attention to the man behind the curtain. That my friends is the inconvenient truth to a democrat.

Yes I'd love to eliminate every single RINO as well. I can honestly say I will sleep better with Republican in the White House however. Obama has taken failure to a level not seen before in my lifetime.

I think it's all part of the cycle of life from the beginning of time till now. There are always the Al Gores in this world who try to profit from fear mongering, which is unfortunate for us but great for them. I personally don't believe in man made global warming. I too remember the coming ice age that we should be in by now, but oops, that changed and then it was global warming. Now they call it climate change, which of course covers everything so they are never wrong........right?

The idiots who try to sell us on this warming trend also leave pout the previous cooling trend, which would show the true AVERAGE. That would, however, defeat the agenda they have. Only 40 years ago they were crying about a new ice age. And it's a known fact that the Atlantic and Pacific are on totally different warming and cooling trend cycles. The combination of the two makes a big difference in the weather.

Not to side step the real issue of science and junk science. Let's just discuss whether making things a cleaner would help overall. At least then if it was junk science....we'd be doing the right thing anyhow.

For anyone younger than me it is sometimes difficult to understand that things ARE cleaner today than in our past. in fact they seem to be improving year by year. We are being successful, and anyone who is screaming 'Panic!" should be suspect.

I remember smoke-black brick walls of industrial buildings (1950's) in my home town in Ohio; they are now washed red by purer air and cleaner rain.

I remember being in a friend's single engine private plane and looking down at the Los Angeles Valley at a thick green haze we had flown out of. The pilot said there were times he hesitated leaving the clear cloud-specked surroundings and going back down into the visibly poluted air, but knew he did not have enough gas to stay where we were.

I remember walking across a bridge in Ohio going home from school. Some days the stench was so strong that we hurried to get across. Today people picnic by, and swim in, that same river.

I never saw a deer within 100 miles of my home town until 2000 when visiting relatives. Two of them were feeding on a lawn not 50 feet from the street I once lived on.

For 35 years I've lived in Washington State. In the last few years, we have annual reports of human encounters with cougars in residential areas.

And I remember driving down into hippie-infested enviro-c...

For anyone younger than me it is sometimes difficult to understand that things ARE cleaner today than in our past. in fact they seem to be improving year by year. We are being successful, and anyone who is screaming 'Panic!" should be suspect.

I remember smoke-black brick walls of industrial buildings (1950's) in my home town in Ohio; they are now washed red by purer air and cleaner rain.

I remember being in a friend's single engine private plane and looking down at the Los Angeles Valley at a thick green haze we had flown out of. The pilot said there were times he hesitated leaving the clear cloud-specked surroundings and going back down into the visibly poluted air, but knew he did not have enough gas to stay where we were.

I remember walking across a bridge in Ohio going home from school. Some days the stench was so strong that we hurried to get across. Today people picnic by, and swim in, that same river.

I never saw a deer within 100 miles of my home town until 2000 when visiting relatives. Two of them were feeding on a lawn not 50 feet from the street I once lived on.

For 35 years I've lived in Washington State. In the last few years, we have annual reports of human encounters with cougars in residential areas.

And I remember driving down into hippie-infested enviro-conscious Oregon several years ago where I experienced the worst air-pollution in 50 years driving through a small town of only 4,000... it was from wood smoke. That year Oregon had to pass a law against using wood stoves for heating... and the poor misguided anti-nuke do-gooders had to use clean nuclear-power electricity from our local plant in Washington.

The US Environment has changed and is changing for the better, and the instant-environmentalist Fanatics are being exposed for what they always were... political hacks.

Follow the money, that's how I investigate. Who has more to lose/gain in this debate: those who say global warming is fake, or those who say it's real.

Those who say it's real might, somewhere, somehow, have some idea of a "green" energy source that might someday make them some money. These folks currently have nothing to protect, and SOME of them might have a longshot at getting rich if they win out the hearts and minds of the people.

Those who say it's fake have a huge industry going that turns huge profits and would crumble if what the global warming folks were saying was true and everyone believed it. On the other hand, if they can discredit global warming, they'll remain rich and protect their income for at least until the planet is uninhabitable by humans, which will be after they're dead and gone.

I examine those two sets of motivating circumstances and I conclude that the latter group has the greater reason to lie.

Plus, I've heard the "cooking fires" theory, and I have a pretty good idea that humans have been using cooking fires for thousands of years with no ill effects, while during the single century or so that we've been burning fossil fuels, there has been a dramatic ill effect. That's just common sense.

Green energy makes lots of money. Just look at Al Gore's 'carbon credits' and all the money Obama heaped on Solyndra. There's more than one way to skin a cat - and liberals are experts at getting 'free' money out of our pockets via the govt.

The fact is that we are MUCH cleaner in our atmosphere today than Ye Olde England was a few hundred years ago. I have to disagree with you on the motivation of those who say it is real. Al Gore has made a fortune telling people all over the world that it is real, despite the discovery of faked memos, email leaks that showed fraud and deceit and the fact that they leave out the cooling trend that preceded this warming trend (not so long ago--I recall the crying about a new ice age). If you want accurate averages, you don't bury half of the data. And if the world government idiots want to control land use, resources and more, they crank out some Hegelian theory that there is a dire concern they and only they can solve--hence new laws, new restrictions, new taxes and fewer liberties personally. It's the same game the wealthy elite have played for ages. Don't swallow the boat and dock with the hook, line and sinker.

Wow, you're the one swallowing the bait. Al Gore was born rich, and has not gotten all that much richer. What all the environmental companies have taken in - it's peanuts compared to what the oil companies have taken in. The oil companies are the ones restricting your liberties - you don't have the freedom to use alternative energy sources because they have squashed and fought and paid for legislation and disinformation campaigns against all of them.

When you talk about old England, you're talking about the lack of proper sewage and sanitation in the city of London. The air and water, overall, were cleaner than they are now BY MILES.

Follow the money. Every flaw in the science is not evidence that the deniers are correct. Your children and their children will thank you to put an end to our oil dependence.

Yeah, follow the money. If the oceans are about to rise horribly, why did Ol' Al buy a $9M mansion on the beach in California? And I guess you are unaware of all his investments' overseas, etc. Nevermind, your mind is made up, right?

The inconvenient fact is that our greenhouse gas emissions are heating up the planet. It's inconvenient because modern civilisation relies on fossil fuel combustion for transport, electricity, heating, cooking etc., and we can't just give that all up and survive. So, we can't live with fossil fuels, and we can't live without them. That conundrum is more than just inconvenient, it's a very serious predicament, and one for which there is no realistic solution at the moment.

You've fallen for all the pictures of the poor polar bears with no icebergs to sit on, perhaps? Did you know the polar bears are being shot to thin out the 'herds', so to speak? That means there are enough and more of them to be posing problems where they live among people.

Perhaps you think the level of the oceans are rising due to iceberg melting. Why then did a famous 'warmer' advocate (who claims he invented the internet) buy a $9M mansion on the beach in California? Do an experiemnt on your kitchen table--place a glas of water with several ice cubes in it on the table and mark the level. Come back later after the ice has melted and check the level. It's the same, due to a principle of physics common to ice and water. Water EXPANDS 10% when it freezes into ice. Therefore 10% of an iceberg is above water. When it melts, it again seeks the same level as before it became ice, SHRINKING as it melts to liquid form.

Perhaps you don't believe the paleo-climatologists who say the levels of both oxygen and CO2 were higher in times past than they are now--MUCH higher. The earth was more like a greenhouse then--yes. It also had larger plants and was home to many more species than it is today. It had FEWER hurricanes and tornadoes then, as well, due to the fact that these events a...

You've fallen for all the pictures of the poor polar bears with no icebergs to sit on, perhaps? Did you know the polar bears are being shot to thin out the 'herds', so to speak? That means there are enough and more of them to be posing problems where they live among people.

Perhaps you think the level of the oceans are rising due to iceberg melting. Why then did a famous 'warmer' advocate (who claims he invented the internet) buy a $9M mansion on the beach in California? Do an experiemnt on your kitchen table--place a glas of water with several ice cubes in it on the table and mark the level. Come back later after the ice has melted and check the level. It's the same, due to a principle of physics common to ice and water. Water EXPANDS 10% when it freezes into ice. Therefore 10% of an iceberg is above water. When it melts, it again seeks the same level as before it became ice, SHRINKING as it melts to liquid form.

Perhaps you don't believe the paleo-climatologists who say the levels of both oxygen and CO2 were higher in times past than they are now--MUCH higher. The earth was more like a greenhouse then--yes. It also had larger plants and was home to many more species than it is today. It had FEWER hurricanes and tornadoes then, as well, due to the fact that these events are caused by DIFFERENCES in humidity and temperature. So, do we want to
cool' the planet or warm it up?

Perhaps you think we are making an impact on the atmosphere? What all of mankind does in a single year PALES to what a single eruption of a volcano does to add CO2 to the air around us. We have several small eruptions per year that are never mentioned on the news and a few large ones each decade. One eruption in the 1800's led to "the year without a summer". Look it up.

Don't fall for every story you hear. The same boneheads were saying we were heading into an ice age only forty years ago. I know that to be fact, as it was all over the news. Now that the numbers show they were wrong and only in a tempoorary cooling period, they take the opposite approach and try to fearmonger. The fact is that the numbers used to do their calculations only take in the more recent warming trend and not the earlier cooling trend. You can't get a true AVERAGE if you don't include both sets of numbers. Makes sense, yes? All I ask for is truth, as do many others. The numbers will bear out what the real trend is, if ALL the numbers are included. Lieing serves no one but those who have something to gain by their lies.

Well, no. I'm mindful of the fact that we've known about the greenhouse effect for 200 years. The potential for human fossil fuel combustion to enhance the greenhouse effect and thus cause global warming was already recognised in the 1800s, and now we have 3 decades of observations showing that anthropogenic warming has become distinguishable from the noise of natural variability. Both modern observations and palaeoclimate data indicate that natural climate feedbacks are large and positive, amplifying the growing anthropogenic forcing by about a factor of three.

Human activity is now the dominant influence on global climate. We have had the same warming influence in just the last 250 years as the sun took 125 million years to achieve. We have gone from gradual natural cooling into extremely rapid anthropogenic warming, 50,000 times faster than the long slow warming trend which kicked off the PETM and subsequent hyperthermal events over 50 million years ago -

So what we're doing to the climate is really extremely dangerous, and unprecedented in the geological record.

The greenhouse effect keeps the Earth from turning into an iceball. Carbon dioxide (CO₂) provides 80% of the forcing that sustains the greenhouse effect¹ - this is why the Earth has been so much hotter in the past, despite the sun being cooler (e.g. when the dinosaurs were alive).

So CO₂ is the principal 'control knob' of global climate². In the last 250 years we've increased atmospheric CO₂ by 40% from fossil fuel burning and cement manufacture - that means we've increased the strength of the greenhouse effect, which is heating up the climate.

The best evidence says that we can expect to see around 1.3°C of short-term warming just from this rise in CO₂, amplified by fast feedbacks (mainly the increasing water vapour in the atmosphere, and the shrinking ice sheets). As the longer term feedbacks kick in, such as carbon cycle feedbacks, it could be twice as much again.

Unfortunately there are other warming agents that we're producing, such as methane and nitrous oxide, which take the expected short-term warming to over 2°C, meaning that even the biggest realistic cuts in greenhouse gas emissions aren't going to be enough to avert dangerous global warming³. That means we're going to have to try geo-engineering techniques which are fraught with danger. It's not good news.

The greenhouse effect keeps the Earth from turning into an iceball. Carbon dioxide (CO₂) provides 80% of the forcing that sustains the greenhouse effect¹ - this is why the Earth has been so much hotter in the past, despite the sun being cooler (e.g. when the dinosaurs were alive).

So CO₂ is the principal 'control knob' of global climate². In the last 250 years we've increased atmospheric CO₂ by 40% from fossil fuel burning and cement manufacture - that means we've increased the strength of the greenhouse effect, which is heating up the climate.

The best evidence says that we can expect to see around 1.3°C of short-term warming just from this rise in CO₂, amplified by fast feedbacks (mainly the increasing water vapour in the atmosphere, and the shrinking ice sheets). As the longer term feedbacks kick in, such as carbon cycle feedbacks, it could be twice as much again.

Unfortunately there are other warming agents that we're producing, such as methane and nitrous oxide, which take the expected short-term warming to over 2°C, meaning that even the biggest realistic cuts in greenhouse gas emissions aren't going to be enough to avert dangerous global warming³. That means we're going to have to try geo-engineering techniques which are fraught with danger. It's not good news.

Sun was cooler then? It's in a cooling trend now. It's cooler than it ever was and the oxygen and CO2 levels were higher then, allowing the animals to be larger, eating plants that were much larger. Our ability to change the environment is miniscule compared to one single volcanic eruption.

The sun is gradually warming up over geological time so we know something else must have been responsible for the hothouse world of the dinosaurs, and that was the enhanced greenhouse effect due to elevated levels of atmospheric CO₂.

It is of course a myth about us vs. volcanoes. Our greenhouse gas emissions are over 100 times greater than all the world's volcanoes put together. We're in charge of global climate now.

If you believe our greenhouse gas emissions eclipse all volcanoes combined, you have done NO research whatsoever. As for the world of the dinosaurs, there was a water canopy about the earth that gave a greenhouse effect, enabling plants and animals to grow to tremendous size. There is ample evidence that men and dinosaurs were contemporary, as the footprints of each are preserved in a layer of clay in Texas. Now, if you want to know what made the change and caused the water canopy to disappear, see the free download The Biblical Flood and the Ice Epoch, which scientifically approaches the problem of making science and the Bible meet on common ground. I think you will find it very eye-opening. You might also read Velikovsky's Worlds In Collision, which supports the theories, but through traditions of various world civilizations.

Please share that information with the rest of us, because I know for a fact that one of the biggest eruptions in recent history - Pinatubo in the Philippines - only put out about 50 million tons of CO₂ in its entire eruption. Compare that to the 30 billion tons of CO₂ we produce every single year, and you can readily see that your assertion is nonsense.

"Do the Earth’s volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities? Research findings indicate that the answer to this frequently asked question is a clear and unequivocal, “No.” Human activities, responsible for some 36,300 million metric tons of CO2 emissions in 2008 [Le Quéré et al., 2009], release at least a hundred times more CO2 annually than all the world’s degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes (Gerlach, 2010)."